4 ms·

The moment a police officer breaks the law, he's a "criminal". The moment you have that third beer and drive home a bit sooner than you should, you're a "crimin

The moment a police officer breaks the law, he's a "criminal". The moment you have that third beer and drive home a bit sooner than you should, you're a "criminal". Perhaps we should get away from using "criminal" as a dehumanizing term like it's a career path, like it's an us vs them. There are indeed "career criminals", but the majority of people who have ever broken the law have the same sets of motivation and desires and choices as those who haven't.

oglop 3y ago
Lol, as if the name is the problem. "but the majority of people who have ever broken the law have the same sets of motivation and desires and choices as those who haven't. " So what? What is your point here? If you break the law, you are a criminal, because that's the definition, someone that broke the law. It's not dehumanizing, it's just saying "a person that was convicted of breaking the law". Good lord, any type of statement, even about eye color, technically comes out as "us vs them". So you're point is shallow and pedantic.
- bdcravens 3y ago
  Revisit the original comment, saying that "criminals" are worse than cops. Surely someone who drives 61 in a 55 isn't worse than the type of cops being discussed, even though that person, by definition, is a "criminal". Even a comparison of cops and criminals is odd, since by definition, any cop can be a criminal by violating the law. The only reasonable explanation is the overloading of the word to mean something more.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  When you start judging the entire group of "criminals" is when the problems start. It does make it sound like a career path, rather than a thing that happened one time. And conviction is not needed.
mrangle 3y ago
This is a bad reply that seeks to compare all cops, of which very few are arrest-level criminals as a percentage, to the level of the hardcore criminals that they exist to police. The answer makes no sense in the context of the statement to which I am replying nor in the context of my reply. Its a trollish answer that is seeking to argue for the sake of arguing, because we can't allow that law enforcement are are preferrable to criminals. The extremists on this forum are something else. I didn't asky you for a pedantic debate on parsing criminal value. I won't join you in not seeing it as "us vs them" because you are choosing to blend low level and high level crime into a single category. Yes, the guy who was arrested for drunk-in-public isn't "them". Yes, the person who was arrested for street robbery is "them", and who almost always has a long rap sheet. Your last phrase is indecipherable.

oglop 3y ago

Lol, as if the name is the problem. "but the majority of people who have ever broken the law have the same sets of motivation and desires and choices as those who haven't. " So what? What is your point here? If you break the law, you are a criminal, because that's the definition, someone that broke the law. It's not dehumanizing, it's just saying "a person that was convicted of breaking the law". Good lord, any type of statement, even about eye color, technically comes out as "us vs them". So you're point is shallow and pedantic.

bdcravens 3y ago
Revisit the original comment, saying that "criminals" are worse than cops. Surely someone who drives 61 in a 55 isn't worse than the type of cops being discussed, even though that person, by definition, is a "criminal". Even a comparison of cops and criminals is odd, since by definition, any cop can be a criminal by violating the law. The only reasonable explanation is the overloading of the word to mean something more.
Dylan16807 3y ago
When you start judging the entire group of "criminals" is when the problems start. It does make it sound like a career path, rather than a thing that happened one time. And conviction is not needed.

mrangle 3y ago

This is a bad reply that seeks to compare all cops, of which very few are arrest-level criminals as a percentage, to the level of the hardcore criminals that they exist to police. The answer makes no sense in the context of the statement to which I am replying nor in the context of my reply. Its a trollish answer that is seeking to argue for the sake of arguing, because we can't allow that law enforcement are are preferrable to criminals. The extremists on this forum are something else. I didn't asky you for a pedantic debate on parsing criminal value. I won't join you in not seeing it as "us vs them" because you are choosing to blend low level and high level crime into a single category. Yes, the guy who was arrested for drunk-in-public isn't "them". Yes, the person who was arrested for street robbery is "them", and who almost always has a long rap sheet. Your last phrase is indecipherable.